God.

[gothdolly]

Re: God.

I'm just going to say something without even reading most of the stuff on this page. But, if you look at the bible, it says the first people were Adam and Eve. But where in the bible is the dinosaurs and the cave people and evolution? Does that meen Adam and Eve were cave people? Eh.... well I probably don't know what I'm talking about so if someone could answer that for me, that would make me happy.

[devonin]

Re: God.

The thing is, if you comprehend and believe the concepts behind string theory and higher dimensions, you would know that a God figure was at no time required for the apparent start of our universe.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

It implies a lot of changes have to be made in Mathematical models. Then the new mathematical models, if they yield results, reveal the truth of the theory. It's kind of silly to tackle scientific questions as if they have some greater meaning-of-life type meaning behind them, because they don't necessarily. Let's look at Atomism. The final nail in the coffin of the opposition movement was a paper about the minute vibrations of bacteria which couldn't be explained by Brownian motion. Not exactly the most exciting thing in the world, but if you actually think about it for a second or two you realize there are very dramatic implications.

The deal is with superstring theory that since science has already begun to reduce the physical world down to components, it is no longer shocking when people suggest in theory that the world isn't quite as whole or solid as conventional wisdom indicates.

[Artic_counter]

Re: God.

Every things and there is no exception is made with Atoms or/and other unknown elements. Einsten prove that when atoms were moved they could cause a reaction. If the universe started with 1 atom and multiplied him self the 2 atoms would probably cause a reaction and create something this something would mutiply again and again making many posibility of reaction. Then that could have create the universe. The Big Bang would be like a long chain of reaction like the atomic bomb but in a lot way bigger. The atoms of the universe would now multiply and make reaction. In fact, there is a possibility that the Creator most known by the name of God is in fact the first atom of all.

This is my theory.

[devonin]

Re: God.

Every things and there is no exception is made with Atoms or/and other unknown elements.

Except that if you chuck an atom at another atom fast enough, they break open and all kinds of other smaller crap comes flying out. Also, atoms aren't elements.

[Artic_counter]

Re: God.

Except that if you chuck an atom at another atom fast enough, they break open and all kinds of other smaller crap comes flying out. Also, atoms aren't elements.

I know that but there migth be element that are part of things and there is also atoms. These are 2 things really different.It's not the same thing.

[hayatewillown]

Re: God.

Atoms make up elements, so they can't be elements. You guys are getting a bit off topic.

Also, I have told puretexanblood this:
I do not believe in Creationism, I believe that god did create the earth, but in such a way that he influenced the big bang to create us all.

So stop being pricks and trying to disprove god. I don't want to hear it. I posted this to see what you guys thought about the theory. I don't like seeing little A**holes trying to disprove it. You just don't like it because it's not what you think. Big deal. It's a great theory to prove it, so stop "trying" to disprove it.

[Artic_counter]

Re: God.

Atoms make up elements, so they can't be elements. You guys are getting a bit off topic.

Also, I have told puretexanblood this:
I do not believe in Creationism, I believe that god did create the earth, but in such a way that he influenced the big bang to create us all.

So stop being pricks and trying to disprove god. I don't want to hear it. I posted this to see what you guys thought about the theory. I don't like seeing little A**holes trying to disprove it. You just don't like it because it's not what you think. Big deal. It's a great theory to prove it, so stop "trying" to disprove it.

In this forum, we only give our theory and no one have the rigth to decide if it's true or not. We are here to ask question, submit our way of thinking and to help us understand what's around us. All we are saying here is our theory and vote on the most probable theory but we don't know the truth. Yours might be rigth but no one have a proof.

[devonin]

Re: God.

Also, I have told puretexanblood this:
I do not believe in Creationism, I believe that god did create the earth, but in such a way that he influenced the big bang to create us all.

"I don't believe in creationism, I just believe that a superior powerful being created everything..." I see some issues with this logic, my friend.

So stop being pricks and trying to disprove god.

Well, telling someone that they are not -allowed- to try and hold a position is both incredibly arrogant and (I'm pretty sure) against the rules of this forum. If people's attempts to disprove god are so ineffective and pathetic, you should have no problem countering their claims with evidence of your own.

I don't want to hear it.

Then don't ask people for their opinions if you are going to bitch and moan when their opinion differs from yours. Welcome to Critical Thinking.

I posted this to see what you guys thought about the theory. I don't like seeing little A**holes trying to disprove it.

They are telling you what they think about the theory. They think the theory is incorrect and are taking steps to support that disagreement. You get what you asked for, and you asked for opinions, not "opinions as long as you completely agree with me." Welcome to Critical Thinking.

You just don't like it because it's not what you think.

No, it isn't what we think because we think it isn't true, and are happy to provide evidence to support that claim. Your job, then is to provide evidence in support of your claim, and to disprove evidence that we present for our claims. Welcome to Critical Thinking.

Big deal.

It's a big enough deal that there's an entire sub-forum on this website specifically for trying to prove and disprove stated stances. Welcome to Critical Thinking.

It's a great theory to prove it, so stop "trying" to disprove it.

It's a theory. Whether it is a great theory depends entirely on the ability of critical thinkers to point out flaws in the theory, and the ability of the person espousing the theory to defend against objections, and offer counter-points to them. Since your method of doing so appears to be telling us that we -aren't allowed- to disagree with you, or that we are a**holes because we disagree with you, I know which side of -that- particular fence I'm on.

[hayatewillown]

Re: God.

I'm just here to argue, lol.

[devonin]

Re: God.

I'm just here to argue, lol.

Go look up the Monty Python "Buying an arguement" sketch. I think you might benefit immensely from a better understanding of the difference between "disagreement" and "contradiction"

[purebloodtexan]

Re: God.

Hayate, I also told you that it's a matter of faith. I believe that God influenced the Big Bang, I didn't say that it was a known fact. That's the thing you need to be careful about on Critical Thinking.

It's ok to have religious beliefs in CT, but don't state them as if it's a fact.

[Vendetta21]

Re: God.

There's a logical fallacy called "begging the question," which means that your statement proposed to support your conclusion is actually your conclusion.

Examine the following arguement:

Premise: I'm fly.
Conclusion: I'm hot.

Assuming that "fly" and "hot" have the same defined value, this arguement is worthless. The reason is because it's a statement and not an arguement, and you can't really argue a statement that's only support is itself. Consider the following statement:

You ain't, because you're not.

The arguement here is:

Premise: You ain't.
Conclusion: You're not.

This conclusion cannot be argued. Because of it's form the arguement is fallacious. It is simply the same statement reiterated in a different way but has the same value. The truth value of the statement can either be affirmed or denied.

Revisit the first statement, but now consider two people are at opposition.

Person 1: I'm hot because I'm fly.
Person 2: You ain't because you're not.

Assuming that we can bring no other evidence to the table, this arguement then becomes boolean, or in other words: one or the other. Either person 1 is right or person 2 is right but we cannot determine or evaluate the statements.

Consider the following statements:

1. God just exists.
2. The Universe just exists.

Assuming that these two statements are also boolean, we can either affirm one or the other, but any sort of discussion on the two is superflous. The same goes for any arguement where the claimed support is also the claimed conclusion. Any arguement where on both sides the support is also the conclusion is not really an arguement, but just the same statement made twice with opposition as to the truth value of the statement. Unless palpable evidence can be brought to the table, one cannot determine what the truth value of the statements are.

[Hollus]

Re: God.

There's a logical fallacy called "begging the question," which means that your statement proposed to support your conclusion is actually your conclusion.

Examine the following arguement:

Premise: I'm fly.
Conclusion: I'm hot.

Assuming that "fly" and "hot" have the same defined value, this arguement is worthless. The reason is because it's a statement and not an arguement, and you can't really argue a statement that's only support is itself. Consider the following statement:

You ain't, because you're not.

The arguement here is:

Premise: You ain't.
Conclusion: You're not.

This conclusion cannot be argued. Because of it's form the arguement is fallacious. It is simply the same statement reiterated in a different way but has the same value. The truth value of the statement can either be affirmed or denied.

Revisit the first statement, but now consider two people are at opposition.

Person 1: I'm hot because I'm fly.
Person 2: You ain't because you're not.

Assuming that we can bring no other evidence to the table, this arguement then becomes boolean, or in other words: one or the other. Either person 1 is right or person 2 is right but we cannot determine or evaluate the statements.

Consider the following statements:

1. God just exists.
2. The Universe just exists.

Assuming that these two statements are also boolean, we can either affirm one or the other, but any sort of discussion on the two is superflous. The same goes for any arguement where the claimed support is also the claimed conclusion. Any arguement where on both sides the support is also the conclusion is not really an arguement, but just the same statement made twice with opposition as to the truth value of the statement. Unless palpable evidence can be brought to the table, one cannot determine what the truth value of the statements are.

This site lists 20 common logical fallacies, like the one described above. Probably useful for CT.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp

Edit: Here's another one; more thorough.

http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=38

[ljw5021]

Re: God.

Go look up the Monty Python "Buying an arguement" sketch. I think you might benefit immensely from a better understanding of the difference between "disagreement" and "contradiction"

Man I love that sketch.